But terrorism has been around for a bit. The USS cole, first WTC attack, Oklahoma city - why did mcveigh do it, did we make him mad or piss in his wheaties or something?

You're in charge. There are people out there, who for whatever reason (foreign and domestic) want to kill a lot of people. Maybe they are nut cases, maybe out for revenge, religious wack jobs, anarchists, etc and so on.

would we be able to absolutely stop every insane person from performing a terrorist act? We divert all the money wasted in Iraq and put it towards real homeland security. Borders and all if we're serious.

they ignored the kinds of warnings that allowed us to catch terrorists prior to the coup of 2000.

your statement is nonsensical. when you don't use law enforcement to detect and apprehend terrorists, and your foreign policy antagonizes terrorist organizations, it doesn't work as a deterrent, therefore it doesn't work? WTF?

39. Surely you don't think 9-11 was planned after Bush came to office?

It had been in the works for many years.

What I am saying is that police work is mostly reactive and insufficient to address the threat. And what are Al Qaeda's foreign policy demands, anyway? That we look away while fundamentalist Sharia law consumes the entire Middle East, a la the Taliban? How do you appease that?

rising fundamentalism is global phenomenon. I think you are close to identifying the problem, but it is bigger than just Islam.

The foreign policy component of my suggestion was intended by me specifically to help to cut off the sources of fundamentalism--poverty, dislocation (physical and cultural), and ignorance. Perhaps we are in violent agreement.

But right now, the scariest and most dangerous one looks to me like the Islamic variety.

I fully agree with you about foreign policy and addressing our past sins, but I just don't know what it will take to convice such unreasonable people (the fundamentalist leaders). I am really at a loss.

Sorry, not calling you an Islamophobe at all, I just thought this article excerpt was relavent...

Every religion has the potential to be abused by some and Islam is no exception. However, what Islamophobes would have us believe about this particular religion is that one splotch is representative of the entire spectrum. One needs only apply this to Christianity, the most familiar religion in the West, to recognize the flaws in this narrow-minded approach.

The Holy Bible contains numerous verses that can be interpreted in such a way that makes it appear that Christianity advocates murder, intolerance, slavery, misogyny, and a long list of other evils. Consider the following passages:

* Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34) * But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay before me. (Luke 19:27) * And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor. (Numbers 25:4-5) * Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. (Deuteronomy 12:2-3) * If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; , of the gods of the people which round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the end of the earth even unto the end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

Removed from their textual and historical contexts, these kinds of passages project a startlingly violent and oppressive picture of Christianity that is completely at odds with the general perception of the religion in the West. Imagine, now, if these and other similar Biblical passages were accompanied almost exclusively with images of the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the Third Reich, the Ku Klux Klan, David Koresh, the Westboro Baptists, abortion clinic bombers, and many other Christian extremists. And also, what if, these images were mixed with talking points and a steady stream of sound bites laden with some of Adolf Hitler's hateful declarations:

* oday I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. 2) * My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. (Munich Speech, April 12, 1922)

With a lens fixated on these types of Christians, and coupled with an antagonistic, literal, and selective interpretation of the Bible, one would naturally develop a rather skewed impression of Christianity, no matter how fair and balanced the presentation would be purported to be.

Religion has the potential for great good but when in the wrong hands, it also has the potential for great evil. When Islamophobes conflate Osamaism with Islam and simply blame the religion, one of the consequences is shutting down discussion of the social, political, and economic reasons and motivations behind many of the conflicts taking place around the world today.

I said Islamic terrorism is caused by Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless of whether or not I agree with that article that Hitler was motivated in any way by Catholicism (I don't, by the way), my point is not that terrorism is confined to Islamists, as it clearly isn't.

But at the moment, Islamic terrorism rightly appears to be the most dangerous, and the most pressing to address. Addressing it means targeting fundamentalism, and I wish I knew how.

these middle class people are outraged in part over the treatment of other muslims by former colonial powers, the US and their Israeli allies.

most suicide bombers (you do consider them to be terrorists?) are poor. To carry out an international plot like the one in the mythical 9-11 bombing story requires that the actors be plausibly in place. It is unlikely that a poor, dislocated Palestinian, for example, would plausibly be in the US to study.

Your argument that since all terrorists are not poor then poverty has no role in international terrorism is illogical.

no poor person is hijacking your airplane today, most of the truly poor have never even stepped foot on an airplane

sheesh

talk about "facts not in evidence"

i am sick of the poor being blamed every time the issue of terror comes up, the truth is if everyone was poor we'd be too busy scrabbling for food, water, and medicines to stay alive to be worried about political games

Somehow Bush's policy of invading Iraq when 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia just didn't seem to work. If people are treated badly for any length of time they will eventually retaliate by which ever means possible.

A good start would be to create fair trade throughout the world, not free trade.

Stop supplying WMD's to selected countries

Treat the UN with respect...First move - Get rid of that moron that has a face only a mother could love - Bolton.

I feel that the first step to getting this Universe back on the right footing was by getting rid of Lieberman. Its still a long walk, but every long walk starts with a first step.

Regardless of how fair and balanced mankind makes the world you will always have a few that will hate whatever it is they decide to hate. They will turn to acts of violence against innocents because they seek attention to their cause. When words fail, violence gets reaction. Look at the anti war movement of the late 60's and how the weathermen who started out as pacifists turned to violence after Kent State and the feeling their words weren't working fast enough to end the war.

I don't think you could ever really stop violence, terra-ists. No country will ever be able to eliminate them.

I guess the best thing you can do is to control it.

Same with another War-The War on Drugs. It will never end, could never be stopped. Controlling it is the only option (although I feel we should just legalize all drugs and get it off the streets, where so much more violence and death occurs.

88. But even with the 'war on drugs' the spraying that causes lose of crops,

illness, etc. and the bloodshed that goes along with it without any plan to give the people an alternative just breeds resentment and anger. Perhaps if more people read John Perkins book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and got a more broad-spectrum picture of what is done in the name of multi-national corporations more of a sense of understanding could start.

I remember watching a documentary relating to the indigenous people of Columbia and they used coca leaves for nutrition. One of the tribal elders stated, "leave it to the white man to find a way to make it wicked."

Perhaps returning to the Golden Rule is what is in order and the sooner the better, IMHO.

you said " Regardless of how fair and balanced mankind makes the world you will always have a few that will hate whatever it is they decide to hate. They will turn to acts of violence against innocents because they seek attention to their cause. When words fail, violence gets reaction. " Do you realize that you just described the chimp and his regime?

Violence is the last resort of the desperate. When someone turns to violence to get his/her way, they have lost the fight. Remember independence was not won by the gun alone. No war has been won by guns alone, there were always someone behind the fighting trying to work a compromise an end to the fighting. GW inc. seem to have never learned that fact in life.

You can, however, disrupt "organized terror" via police-type operations, and stop the proliferation and need for so-called "terrorist training camps" (which are mostly madrases in Pakistan) by giving people a real education, real opportunity, a reason to value their own lives, and therefore view yours as also having value. It's an extremely complicated issue that really can't be settled with firearms. IMO

The foregoing is strictly my personal opinion. If said opinion differs with yours please understand that the poster in no way intended to offend your sensibilities and preemptively apologizes for any mental anguish you may have experienced

I don't expect we will ever be able to get rid of it, which is why the "war on terror" is such a ridiculous concept. You can't have a war on a *method*, which is what terrorism is -- it's a method of fighting against a more powerful perceived enemy by attacking their civilian targets. It has been used for centuries and will never go away. It will also be impossible to prevent all such attacks, no matter what measures are taken, unless we are willing to live in a completely controlled, totalitarian society. Maybe not even then.

And there will always be people with an axe to grind. Right now it's Al Qaeda and the like, but there are also extremists of other stripes -- such as white supremacists, people who bomb abortion clinics, and crazy people with their own agendas. I think it's fair to say that the right wingers' kill-them-all philosophy is absurd because we can't kill them all. There will always be others.

Seems that the only possibility of reducing the risk of being blown up by angry fanatics might be to give known hostile groups fewer reasons to want to come after us. Maybe if our deeply flawed foreign policy wasn't so conducive to provoking hostility and hate, there wouldn't be so many people willing to kill themselves to kill us. Some might say that altering our foreign policy so as to piss off fewer potential terrorists is just appeasement. I say, so what? Isn't one of the main reasons for having a foreign policy keeping the nation reasonably safe?

We need to start conducting our foreign policy with honor in all situations so that these groups have no *valid* reason to be angry at us. That's not appeasement, it's morality. You're right that there will still be a few with an axe to grind, but they won't be able to drum up near the support and sympathy. Not even close. And the world would be back on our side again. Fighting terrorism would then be a matter of law enforcement and security measures.

If an honest person replacing bush in the presidency, were to get on television to make an appeal, itwould be heard by the terrorist intimately. so, make them a deal they can't refuse. By appealing inpublic, in a spirit of openness, declaring a freedom of information for all public records of past administrations,and opening the lies to be inspected, i plan to open the debate in every human heart what it means to befree, and to ask each person to join us all here on earth to give it a go wishing each other well.

Time to close a lot of miitary bases and collapse and empire, to be replaced by a series of referee-colour cards,like those used by referees during soccer matches. If a country got a yellow card, we would open extensivecooparation to that country as it would be borderline red-card. If a country reached red-card, all financialtransactions in and out of said coutnry would be blockaded until they cam to see reason.

But for non-state actors, we would open up listening channels to engage all peoples in real conversation,as a diplomatic exercise, and to get the state department doing its job... And with this open converation,convert the subversive militarist evils of today in to an open request for cooperation and honest dealingin future, given respect and the realization that we both stand to benefit, me, the american asshole whiterichworld hollow hearted urban cynical burnout, and you, the other human being... and we are open on allchannels.

The military budget needs be cut by 50% and with those savings, universal preventive healthcare provided toall persons planetwide... as a leap of goodwill and investment of venture humanism.

I agree with your concern, yet we need to achieve a mechanism of "no no, bad dog", or the dogsare gonna chase the sheep. I'm sure a dilligent negotiator could find a position with everynation where the bad-dog mechanism not be used. The purpose of a good system is not to use it,but to "use" it, meta. War does not punish a dog, it makes it viscious... then the dog bites.

Love melts a dogs heart and it will be your friend for life. Then, we need to learn how tolove our neighbors, really, that they really love us, and then we will never have wars as wewill be standing amongst friends.

Madelline allbright was framed previously by bush1. Had i been in charge, saddam never would haveinvaded kuwait, as we would have been on the ball and stopped that whole thing before it happened.

The problem here, is that people are not on the ball, they are derelict in their duty, but weaccept very low standards these days, too low, set by the corporate media, that our defenders are only there to apologize for not defending.

I have to believe, you see. I am only 43, a mere tot. Fat in the wrong places, with wrinklesand odd habits... but i'll be dead, man, when i don't feel that way, as then my life will be givenup, all the love i've every lived for and all the passion i feel for anyone who is not free gettingfree, for all persons discovering their enlightenment and the brilliant cooperation of spirits thatour life is really about.

Oh, i feel so responsible for this disgrace, for being part of it, and even hercules could notreverse the tide, not king canute hizzelf, against the rising tide of the ignorant mob, degeneratingour cohesion from love to balance-of-power and now to projeny/survival, ticking down 2 chakras in1 lifetime, the assemblage of this earth has fallen indeed.

To believe certain people will refrain from terrorism simply by talking with them, singing with them, laughing with them, appeasement, asking nicely with a cherry on top, changing your behavior, bribery, sexual favors, etc, etc, etc, etc is very myopic

115. killers are killers. Their causes may differ and they may use different

rationale to justify their actions. Pulling the trigger is the easy way out - you are admitting defeat.

Why should terra-ists be afraid of death if they don't have a chance for a decent life? If you give someone a reason not to kill someone , not to waste someone else's life along with their own, well then you have done something useful.

To a Nazi, the French Resistance were terrorists, and Jean Moulin was an Osama Bin Laden. The Third Reich followed your advice, capturing Moulin and brutally torturing him to death. The Nazis threatened to kill 10 Frenchmen for every 1 German killed by the Resistance, and they made good on their threats. They also tortured many others, but not to extract information -- that is not why States torture (including the U.S.). The intent was to terrorize an oppressed population into acquiescence, into submission. The Nazis intended to instill extreme fear in the occupied population in order to break their will to resist.

Well, we all know how well that worked for the Fuhrur and his Reich.

Hatred ever kills, love never dies such is the vast difference between the two. What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves a burden in reality for it increases hatred.-- Mohandas K Gandhi

A couple of decades ago (I lift this from Noam Chomsky), "the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, made a point that still holds true. 'To offer an honorable solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution of the problem of terrorism,' he said. 'When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes.'"

As long as we hegemonically maintain a global system of disparity and inequality, of various degress of oppression for the majority of the world's citizens, a small number of desparate people will gravitate to sociopathic demagogues like Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and George W Bush. We can swat at the resulting mosquitoes from now until the end of time, but as long as we leave the swamps of oppression in place we will be buzzed anew in every generation.

In Yehoshaphat's words is the answer to terrorism. Stop the madness, stop realpolitik attempts to maintain our systems of disparity by force and intrigue. Sure, troublesome sociopaths will still emerge, but they will have much trouble recruiting from peoples who feel they've received a fair shake in life. An isolated sociopath is easier to defend against than a movement they inspire, fueled by our own unjust actions. Don't invade Iraq. Don't prop up oppressive regimes like the House of Saud for our own economic advantage. Don't train Central American security forces on the art of the death squad at School of the Americas. Don't encourage policies that surrender the public commons to private greed. Don't, in short, engage in imperialism and oppression -- then, and only then, will we win the "War on Terror".

When economies are clicking on all cylinders and people feel secure, really secure - not the republican big brother will take care of you type of secure. People, all people will have fewer reasons to bomb their neighbors.

In a word - economic opportunity. Ok, that's two words. Here are two more: minimum wage. Two more: triple it. Three more: sliding tax scale. The more you take from society the more you should put back.

105. You do know that most terrorists come from upper class families didn't you

Theres 3 things Islamic terrorists got going on. Their religious leaders tell them that by committing suicide it will give them instant acceptance into the after life. Their belief system that has been feed to them since birth means obedience to religious leaders. Then the third thing, sexual repression, males are limited to the amount of contact they have to females. Wealth means little to terrorists as they see themselves as working for the glory of Allah.

Wait, yes, George W Bush was born with a silver spoon up his... well, you get my point. However, I'd sure like to see you support that assertion -- i.e., "most terrorists come from upper class families".

Well, first (mrcheerful) you equate "terrorists" with Muslims working for the glory of God. Don't forget our Christian glory workers like Timothy McVeigh. The McVeigh family fortune, wasn't that a string of HMO's designed to deny people needed healthcare for family profit? Wait, was that Cat Killer Frist? I often get my "upper class" families mixed up.

Then there's the Symbionese Liberation Army. Sure, they kidnapped Patty Hearst, but how about the rest of this "terrorist" organization? Was it Yolanda and Teko Harris that founded a national burger chain? Bo Little's family created the great steel monopolies at the start of the industrial age? Which SLA founding member careened around our nation's posh country clubs before going urban guerrilla?

While I don't disagree with you that a craven desire for money is not what motivates someone to sacrifice all for their beliefs (albeit in many cases mis-guided, delusional beliefs). It is something else. Often a hunger for justice, sometimes just a desire for control. Sometimes just for a feeling of being part of something bigger than themselves. But it would be news to me if "most terrorists come from upper class families", and I would like to see your evidence for that (and I hope it's more than the various MSM propoganda we get about OBL's merry clan).

Remember what sets the Muslim jihads apart from other terrorists is their education. Education is not something most of the lower class has an opportunity of receiving in the middle east. Remember the key word is most of the lower class, not all. We americans take it for granted that the middle east is back wards and full of uneducated people. It wasn't always that way, Baghdad once had universities that were on par with those in the states and Europe. Education takes money. Remember the terrorists that pulled off the 9/11 had above normal educations, they took flight lessons on flying commercial aircraft. America needs to wake up to the fact that we are dealing with people that are just as educated as we are and they know how to apply that education to wards terror attacks.

You can only curb and control it to a certain extent. The whole point of terrorism is to attack what can not be protected. And there are always a handful of lunitics in the world. Wither its aircraft or just shooting up the office terrorsim is not something you stop.

possibly even a death penalty to cut down on a motive for terrorists kidnapping others to exchange for their people who have already been captured

as far as airport, random testing of bags/liquids fine, denial of hydration and lotions to pax not fine and will end in somebody dying of DVT or another illness related to lack of hydration which will get the airline sued for plenty

we best fight terror by hunting down terrorists, not by ruining somebody's eye sight by seizing a needed eye fluid or killing some older person whose requests for water went unserved because of unexpected turbulence

I just don't think that will begin to address the cause of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The cause is Islamic fundamentalism itself, and I don't know how to moderate (or de-fang) the exttreme practitioners of that religion. But do that, and you've solved the rpoblem.

He is seeking out justice against a person who did not themselves committ the act.

Punishing by proxy as it were.

Let's say my son was killed by Iraqi goverment and I go kill some iraqi's who had nothing to do with it. I would call that a terrorist act.

If I am in a country that is oppressed by another country and I start killing it's people (not soldiers) I think that would be terrorism. If I targeted the military and some civilians near there were killed, and such was not my intention, I don't think that is terrorism though.

It's all about intent and victim. If you intend to kill innocent people to get back at your loss, that to me is wrong and would be classified as terrorism.

99. What about the man who was photographed being forced to give oral sex...

Edited on Thu Aug-10-06 08:08 PM by NNN0LHI

...to another man at Abu Ghraib Prison? Or the Iraqi boy who was anally raped there? He a terrorist too if he wants revenge for that? Or the ones who had chemical lights jammed up their anus at Abu Ghraib? More terrorists for wanting revenge for that stuff?

we're terrorists. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to get back at the Saudis, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, et al, members of al-Qaeda, who were financed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (our allies). Terrorism is a method by which people with no political representation attempt (rightly or wrongly) to get attention and recourse. You can't destroy "terrorism" any more than they can destroy "freedom".

He served in the navy on a ship in an American battle group in the Pacific during WW 2 after the USA was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor.

He assisted as much as one person could in helping to kill 100's of thousands of completely innocent Japanese people who lived in Tokyo which was firebombed to the ground along with many other cities. And that is not even counting the two cities full of human beings we completely flattened with the atom bombs.

Some of the babies who were certainly killed were only minutes out of their mothers womb and were as innocent as one can be. Yet we still burned them up with abandon because the leaders of Japan attacked our country.

136. War is terror - at least for those caught in it. Your father was doing

what he thought was right, though. He didn't intend to kill innocents, to be sure. I don't believe you can end terrorism with bombs - you can only create more. I think we also need to refuse to be "terrorized", and that would go a long way toward stopping this insanity.

You mean, like bombing Lebanonese citizens for the purported crimes of Hezbollah? Or invading Iraq because our leader told us they were led by Saddam Bin Laden? So Israel and the United States are "terrorists"?

You would conclude, then, that the French Resistance were terrorists because, when they set off a bomb in a resturant frequented by Nazi soldiers, innocent citizens were also killed. Would you then, like poopyseedman, be forced to agree that the French Resistance should've been wiped off the face of the earth? Or, referring back to my first paragraph, the United States and Israel should be so vanquished?

The U.S. and Israel punishes by proxy all the time. In fact, an interesting turn of events under Bush is we've dropped some of the pretense of proxy when we round up everday citizens and torture them in places like Abu Graib. Beforehand, we'd train proxy torturers at Ft. Benning (SOA). Our CIA and military would follow their students back to their home countries to "encourage" the local security forces in their brutal suppression of their people, all for trans-national corporate profit, of course (how dare they clamor for schools and hospitals when there's trans-national corporate money to be made!).

I think the term "terrorist" has been drained of all real meaning today. Instead, it has become a tool of the propagandist working for the State in its effort to repress any discussion of cause and justice. Same with the word "conspiracy theorist" -- just empty words, now, sand in the eyes of the general public while our elites continue with their self-serving agenda.

This does not mean the world isn't a dangerous place. It is. And there are many evil men out there who are not American. And we need to defend ourselves against them. But not in this way, not by exercise of the Bush Doctrine -- that just perpetuates and multiplies the problem.

You know, it won't be long now until we reach the point where George W Bush will have killed more innocent Americans than Osama Bin Laden killed on 9-11 (assuming for the moment that OBL had anything to do with it -- probable as it is, GWB has presented scant evidence to the U.S. public).

In Bush's case he kills every American soldier who, out of love of country or dire economic need, volunteered for our armed services assuming he or she would only be sent in harms way to protect our Constitution, our freedom, and our lives, only to find themselves in Iraq based on craven lies.

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead.-- Arundhati Roy

i don't really care abt your motive, if you are blowing up innocent people on an airplane, you don't belong on my planet

if you specifically hunt down and kill the specific soldiers who killed your wife/kids, it is POSSIBLE that is a crime of passion or manslaughter, not terror, and you should be sentenced accordingly -- any judge or jury would be understanding of the difference -- but you still need to pay a price -- either we are a society of laws or we are not

the people who flew into the wtc, the people who blew up the madrid or london trains, the people who planned to blow up the jets today -- no one is saying they are victimized iraqis

Jacketed with cobalt-thorium G. Detonated over the earth's major population centres. Like Stalin said: 'no man, no problem.' That or some other form of human extinction is the only way we'll ever end terrorism (ie, use of violence or coercive threat of same to achieve political goals).

Tell the Israelis they must leave the West bank completely. Get rid of the "settlers". "You get to keep what you have so don't whine. It's a bargain!" Then I'd tell the Palestinians that I know it isn't just, but you will get the West Bank and Gaza in toto. That's the best you can get." Then I'd get the Arabs and the West, bash their collective heads, and tell them, "You must contribute some of those obscene oil profits and give it to the Palestians to create an economy for them." But I'm not God. Thank God!

And, yeah, improve our health, change our consumer habits, detach from the oil and war profiteers, and other sensible polices, to build real strength at home, and a peaceful and just economy in a peaceful and just world.

You just knock all this over--and say, NOW what are you going to do with the wackos?

Well, maybe we'll have FEWER wackos, if 1, 2 and 3 are accomplished.

What do you want, a police manual?

Terrorist cells are not now--and have never been--a big problem. Good police work is the answer, of course. War isn't. And the more peace and justice you have, the fewer terrorist cells you'll have to deal with.

If people have enough to eat, and dignity and self-determination, and if they feel they have a chance at the redressing of any grievances, they usually are not motivated to commit "terrorist" acts. If they are shoved around, and stomped on, and their land stolen, and their democracies destroyed (Iran!), and fatcat sheiks who lord it over them and steal all their wealth, are seen holding hands with US president, and they see no hope anywhere, a lot more of them might just become fanatical and suicidal than would normally be the case among any given peoples.

Further, I would say that our secret government--the one that CREATED Al Qaeda and FUNDED Osama bin Laden--is way, way out of control. God knows what shit they're stirring up now, with more of these Bushite criminals in action, and the Bush Cartel in charge.

Be just with other people. Be peaceful in your intent. Stop lying. Stop stealing from others in the name of "freedom." Stop sicking global corporate predators upon the world in the name of "democracy." And you will likely see a lot less "terrorism" and a lot more cooperation, prosperity, fairness, honesty, friendliness and good government all around.

you said -- Be just with other people. Be peaceful in your intent. Stop lying. Stop stealing from others in the name of "freedom." Stop sicking global corporate predators upon the world in the name of "democracy." And you will likely see a lot less "terrorism" and a lot more cooperation, prosperity, fairness, honesty, friendliness and good government all around.

i say -- if you are not being just w. other people, if you are being warlike in your intent, if you are lying, if you are stealing, if you are siccing corporate predators upon the world...KNOCK IT OFF!

but as for me i am already just w. other people, i am already peaceful in my intent, i don't lie and steal, and i have no power even to sic a pit bull on somebody much less a global corporate predator...and ya know what? i have done all this, and there are still bad guys out there! imagine that

after a certain point, unless you are a total ostrich, you have to accept that some fraction of people are pure evil and we have no alternative but to do good police/prosecutorial work to put a stop to their little games

it's easy to say "there will always be terror as long as there are poor people," the poor are a cheap and easy target for the poor will always be with us, so they provide a ready-made excuse

even tho we have no proof that any poor person ever has planned, executed, and funded a terror plot w.out help from the rich and/or middle class

70. Stop calling them terrorists and call them what they are - criminals.

Treat it as crime, not as a "war". War on Drugs has escalated the problem 100X (not to mention that the real big money in drugs in under government control). Same with the War on Terror.

But there are 2 another key components to this GWOT that need to be addressed in the equation: oil and religion. Get us off an oil based energy strategy and the problem of terrorism would go away. Declaring war/occupation on the most secular and modern society in the ME has marginalized moderation and rewarded religious fundementalism. We have radicaized the ME states.

... regarding the extreme RW bastardization of Islam, the first step would be to admit to and understand the West's own involvement in creating and encouraging this form of religious extremism.

Greg Palast makes some very interesting points about the fall of Mossadegh in Iran (how declassified documents demonstrate the CIA's role in convincing conservative Islamic groups that democracy is "unislamic" when there are Islamic concepts that encourage democracy) and Big Oil's role in shaping the Middle East (listen to Palast explain the creation of the Iraqi state).

Additionally, I highly recommend a series of five articles by Brian Whitaker, Middle East Editor of the Guardian, on "Democracy & the Middle East." In each of his articles, he tackles a topic that needs to be solved for democracy to work. The Colonialist legacy, the problem of sitting on a valuable resource, Israel/Palestine, and the bastardization of Islam.

As long as we're recommending background reading I have to throw in Devil's Game: How the US Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam by Robert Dreyfuss. Excellent piece of scholarship and good writing. It will clear up a lot of misconceptions, but caveat it will PYO at the same time. Definitely worth the time.

As in our desperate attacks on anything "left" our government is still using the flawed policy of covertly fusing religion with state, disregarding the fact that there exists no singular "World of Islam".

OH,...and when the corporacrats CAN'T economically oppress a country, including its own, because their is a populist leader that just says, "NO", make it LAW that whenever the U.S. military and all U.S. "security" corporations are used to exact that oppression, A LIFE SENTENCE FELONY if they go after that leader or its supporters.

1) A two state solution in Israel. A thriving Palestinian state next to a thriving Israel. 2) Invest in alternative fuel.3) Let nations keep their own resources.4) Fix our own country and butt out. No more wars of liberation.5) Stop trying to Westernize and Christianize them.

There have been Islamic fundamentalists for hundreds of years. They aren't imperalists and the majority of people in any nation just want to live their own lives in peace. Radicalism would be discouraged.

And I don't see murder, whether it's for love, money, or ideology, going away any time soon.

However, you can stop "terrorism" as such by stopping the terror.

1. Remind Americans that we all die, and a few of us, sadly, will die sooner than we thought, whether from terrorism or too many Big Macs2. Remind Americans that we had thousands of Soviet ICBMs pointed at us for 4 decades and we didn't resort to this kind of snivelling3. Remind Americans that we need more police back on the street, which means we all have to dig a little deeper and pay some damn taxes (seriously, people, just pay the damn taxes. Is it *that* hard?)4. Finally, remind Americans to reach down, check that they still have testicles and/or ovaries, and grow the $*%& up instead of crying to daddy every time somebody threatens us

The theme I see, a good one, is let's get countries to work together for common goals and the good of each other, over the good for just one. Do what is best for yourself, AND each other (ala a beautiful mind).

111. Please look into the Palast vid and Whitaker articles I posted...

... I know they might be too time consuming but I really believe they're worth the time. Don't worry, you don't have to write me a report/essay back. No homework. ... just a recommendation to look into them.

And who says 'they' hate us? other than this administration??? Its easy to say what others think- its harder to know what is true, and trustworthy.

Hatred is not the opposite of love, it is a part of being 'connected'- the opposite of love, the thing that will really destroy us all- is apathy- it is the ability to hear that Darfur is happening, to see what our fellow human beings are living through, and turn the page, or turn the channel, and not be deeply disturbed- disturbed enough to DO something about it-

We see so much of the suffering that exists in this world thanks to technology- yet we feel unable to change things, and numb our minds with unimportant things- while people suffer and die all over this world, and we piss and moan about the price of gas, the infringement on our 'rights' the newest scandal in this 'hellywood' society..... politics, policies, possessions, prestiege.... all the while people are dying for want of the very basics....

sorry to dump on you- we care so much about 'being safe' but neglect those who die by the thousands every day.... not in a blaze of glory on a plane, not in some big media event but slowly, somtimes silently slipping almost unnoticed out of the circle of life on this sad weary earth.

You can protect your citizens. You can give terrorists no reason to attack. Beyond that, precious little except to intercept and stop them through law enforcement and covert methods. You certainly can't get rid of it by doing what they accuse you of doing such as attacking and taking over countries or exploiting countries for economic gain.

remedy apart from hoping to catch them before they kill people works. Sporadic "terrorism"--McVeigh wasn't terrorism, IMHO--that amounts to revenge attacks.

Then there's terrorism in the sense of some terrorist group. They have an ideology and a purpose. Weathermen, Bader-Meinhoff, IRA (real or otherwise), AQ, whatever: they usually want power, or decide that others' deaths is worth their goal. They're insane, in some sense, but imminently rational: The group matters, the goal matters, the ideology matters, not individuals. Sacrifice the individuals for the sake of the greater good. This is fine rhetoric in wartime, where most of the individuals have some say over their deaths, and believe the cause just enough. But sacrificing bystanders ... ay,there's the rub. Complicating matters is that the ideologies are diverse; what applies to one doesn't apply to the other. Terrorism is a tactic, not a goal.

Such movements need not be organized into a group. Once the ideology and purpose are widespread enough, individuals can act. It looks like a conspiracy; but there's no need for one. The actions, the terrorism, is emanent. It lives in the message, as one of the few possible courses of action. All that's required is that the conditions apply, and action be required. Some people will choose that particular course.

One can fight them by rounding up their members--but then what? If they haven't killed, they'll be free in short order. If they have killed, they've killed innocents--not by their lights, but who cares? One can fight them by limiting resources, confiscating their funds or restricting access. These all deal with tactics. To defeat Germany in WWII, to defeat the Islamic invaders in France and Vienna, to defeat the Horde in Central Europe stopping the flow of bullets, swords, and arrows wasn't sufficient. It's easy enough to regroup, to find new supplies, and new sub-tactics.

To defeat them, you must defeat the ideology; if that's not possible, you eliminate the preachers. The ideologues. You discredit them. Humiliate them. Shame them so they become pariahs. Show that their ideas are groundless, illogical, contradict whatever the appropriate laws are--but for that you have to convince others that your set of laws are better in some sense.

That is simply not possible. Fellow travellers shame those defending themselves against an aggressive faith because they're fools and either can't break free of a fallacy, or because they're afraid. Either way, it's as much an error to respect their arguments. Fallacious arguments, however heartfelt, are simply foolishness; they must be addressed in culturally relevant terms, but to respect them is idiocy. To respect them lest they take offense and hurl some epithet is to say we must surely fundamentalists in their kooky pronouncements. Either way, they hurl and epithet and take offense. Both are just as wrong.

recognizing the fact that it will always exist- minimizing aggrivating factors- (like not being an arrogant, offensive, self-righteous, opinionated, and 'partisan' world monster power)-

And learning to live life as if every day was 'the last day' and as if every person on earth was 'you'.

People want to hurt others because they are in NEED- It may not seem like it, but that is the motivation behind every unkind and terrible action. When we live life as if 'we' were 'them' then there will be far less people who need to seek revenge, power, the essentials of life, a sense of being valued, of being accepted, of being treated as equal, of having an equal portion of hope.

religious 'wackjobs', those seeking revenge, and those with an agenda which involves having power 'over' others are people who have been used, made afraid, dis-empowered, and mis-treated- The best way to fight this, is to live life as equal runners in this human race.

not invading countries to "free" them when they actually don't want anything to do with us. - By realizing that democracy is indeed a great thing but not everyone wants it. - By not trying to make every other country another U.S. - By realizing that US citizens make up only 4.6% of the world's population and therefore maybe we should stop a minute and find out what's going on with the other 95.4%. - By using common sense and the taxpayers' money to sew up the many loose holes in our "national security" instead of settling daddy's scores or helping our buds get richer- By deciding we want to work with, not dominate or control, the other countries in the world. - By learning about other ways of life, other cultures and other belief systems, including learning who our enemy is and why they are our enemy- By figuring out that we should respect and allow the differences between peoples, not try to eradicate or hate them. - By actually considering who we train and support militarily today because tomorrow they will use that knowledge against us- By letting other countries choose how they want to live and leave them alone to let them live it. - By putting our actions behind our words and when we say we will support a group or country in overthrowing a brutal dictator, actually sticking around to do it and not allow mass slaughters to take place instead. - By using our position of power in this world to help others and make their lives better (in this country and elsewhere) instead of coercing them and taking advantage of them.

but Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism that resides from it is proving to be a global crisis on a scale much greater than the others. On that front, there is only so much we can do to calm paranoia and anger in the Muslim world. Though it wouldn't hurt to stop invading countries in the middle east and fight wars only when absolutely necessary...and a more sensible policy regarding Israel would be much needed.

Defeating poverty is vital and it's also important to find a way to further secular education and encourage rational thought.

Some other ways to decrease global violence is cut military aid to several countries around the world (including Israel and Pakistan among others), strengthen global coalitions to cut the spread of small arms and other weapons, and of course restrict the power of corporations and resist the idea that US foreign policy should further corporate interests.

I keep hearing talk we are making terrorists - but only a small percentage of people in the areas brought up become such. To me those people are defective - and to think we are making folks in the ME terrorists tells me that we think most folks there are not capable of sorting out right from wrong.

Tim McVeigh does not fit that mould. Others do not either. There are some fanatics in this world who hate others, seek approval from their leaders and peers, and will do stupid crap to get such (ala suicide via planes/bombs).

We do need to prevent future attacks by whackos - first though we need to recognize that there are some out there (locally and foreign). How do we prevent attacks (police wise, new laws, etc and so on) and how do we engage people of such a nature and get them to change their views?

151. A genuinely sovereign and genuinely independent state of Palestine

with East Jerusalem as its capital and based on the internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied territories; based on equality and international law

It will not stop all terrorism, of course. But it will significantly reduce the popular support for terrorism in the Arab and Muslim world.

" It was that an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, and at times atrocities and massacres, it perpetuated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs monument of grief and hatred" - - Former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami

To believe that the world could ever be completely free of terrorism is to approach the problem the wrong way. There will always be some people who use terrorism as a tool for various reasons: 1) political or religious extremists (Tim McVeigh, or fundamentalists), 2) mentally disturbed individuals (the unibomber), and 3) agent provocateurs working covertly on behalf of a government.

Dismantling our Bill of Rights to protect us from someone like McVeigh or the unibomber would likely not have stopped them from their actions. Bombing and killing tens of thousands of innocent citizens to prevent religious fundamentalism in a secular nation has not worked, in fact it has had the opposite effect of radicalizing moderate people. Removing civil liberties from innocents and military actions against innocents only punishes those who are not the problem.

The list of simple and effective security measures that the US has failed to take post 911 is mind numbing. Airline & port cargo is still not screened, our nuclear & chemical plants still have not been made to increase their security, national security assets are owned by foreign governments, and the list goes on. These security measures should be addressed, and law enforcement should track and apprehend those who are found to be terrorists within the limits of the Constitution and international law.

If you are looking for guarentees that there will never be another terrorists attack, then you're looking for utopia. Now I don't have a problem with people seeking a perfect world, but when it comes at the destruction of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, international law, and our values, that's where I get off the bus.

With six billion of us, any random alienated whackjob can go off at any time. That crazy Korean took out 130+ people in a Seoul subway a few years back just by lighting off about a quart of gasoline in a milk carton. No organizational connections--just nutz.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.